Monday, June 05, 2006

Resistance is Futile

Is opposing genocide bad for Darfur? Try the sophisticated point of view.

There's always two sides to a question. David
Adesnik at Oxblog finds this creative analysis of the situation in
Darfur.

IS OPPOSING GENOCIDE BAD FOR DARFUR? That's a real question, not some sort
of perverse black humor. In a recent NYT op-ed (pointed out to me by the
lovely SC), Prof. Alan J. Kuperman of the University of Texas argues that:

Darfur was never the simplistic morality tale purveyed by the news media
and humanitarian organizations...The rebels, much weaker than the
government, would logically have sued for peace long ago. Because of the
Save Darfur movement, however, the rebels believe that the longer they
provoke genocidal retaliation, the more the West will pressure Sudan to hand
them control of the region

The solution? Kuperman writes:

This is no job for United Nations peacekeepers...Rather, we should let
Sudan's army handle any recalcitrant rebels, on condition that it eschew war
crimes. This option will be distasteful to many, but Sudan has signed a peace
treaty, so it deserves the right to defend its sovereignty against rebels who
refuse to, so long as it observes the treaty and the laws of war.

Adesnik comments on this proposal in his understated way. "How can one
possibly expect the government of Sudan to observe the laws of war if it has
already sponsored one genocide? That's a little bit like saying that since
Slobodan Milosevic signed the Dayton Accords, we should've trusted him to
implement the accords as well, instead of sending NATO peacekeepers."

Commentary

It's also logical to argue, and the British authorities have apparently done
so, that a robbery victim who resists the criminal causes his own injuries. The
Scotsman wrote in 2004 about the dilemmas faced by people whose homes were being invaded:

The murder of John Monckton and the attack on his wife, Homeyra, during an
apparent burglary in their London home has once again highlighted the true
dangers and indeed the legal and moral dilemma members of the public face when
they are confronted with intruders on their own property.

From a police perspective, the advice to potential victims of burglaries is
unequivocal and clear-cut and you should never "have a go", so to
speak, but for the victims of crime this is a very difficult thing to put into
practice, especially when your natural instincts are to defend yourself, your
family and your own property - the very pillars of your life that are being
violated and potentially destroyed by criminals. ...

As a law-abiding individual confronted by an intruder in your home you face
a catch-22. If you attack the burglar, or react in an "over the top"
manner, as was recently illustrated in the case of Tony Martin who shot
intruders in his Norfolk farmhouse, you will inevitably end up on the
receiving end of a prison sentence that will far outstrip that imposed on the
intruder in your own home. This situation has resulted in a lack of belief in
the law among the public or rather a belief that the law isn’t exactly on
your side when your home is broken into. ...

When individuals are confronted by intruders there are some actions they
should follow. Direct contact should be avoided whenever possible. If
unavoidable, the victim should adopt a state of active passivity. In most
cases the best form of defence is always avoidance. If this isn’t possible,
act passively, be careful what you say or do and give up valuables without a
struggle. This allows the victim to take charge of the situation, without the
intruder’s awareness, through subtle and non-confrontational means. People
can cooperate but initiate nothing. By doing nothing there is no chance of
inadvertently initiating violence by saying something such as "Please don’t
hurt me".

Anyone who thinks the quotation above is a parody should follow the link.
It's real. Just like the NYT op-ed.

• Dr Ian Stephen is an Honorary Lecturer (Forensic Psychology) at Glasgow Caledonian University and has worked in a number of prisons with long-term prisoners and young offenders. He was a consultant to forensic psychology television series Cracker.

With your evidenct today, W, you have little need to state your position with my assessment that the vision of the annoited is not, in foobarista's word, cracked.

Based upon the wealth of evidence in other "failed" government programs, Walter Williams once wrote: When the political process is taken into account, government policies that any reasonable person would call a failure are nearly always a spectacular success.

In a world deemed overpopulatable, what is the vision of the annoited is hardly surprising. It's merely to retain the cooperation of their < s > victims < /s > sheep that forces them to deny -- reluctantly -- where that vision leads them.

Funny thing how even in the light provided by the evidence (even as dramaticly stark as the two tonight) presented here at Belmont Club, so few seem to ready to openly discuss what that vision really is.

Since the major premise of IngSoc is that the rich have what they have because they have stolen it from the poor, and the corrolary is that the role of government is to repair the injustice, it is not surprising that the government has a tolerant view of those enterprising souls who take direct action and eliminate the middleman (thieves).

I have already told y'all about Ben, in Columbia, S.C. who responded to a burgler who had emptyed a 9MM handgun at him by shooting the crimminal with a single .22 round. He was sued by the 17 prior felony convictions crimminal and lost his house in the settlement. I guess he should count himself lucky by not going to jail. But that .22 single shot rifle did enable him to "take charge of the situation" better than his first attempt which merely involved asking the guy what he thought he was doing.

So maybe Dr Stephen is right. Don't talk to them.

But perhaps worst of all in Dr. Stephen's sage advice is the apparent belief that some sort of cosmic order is being preserved by a homeowner losing his life's savings to a burgler by the simple act of self defense. The order is not cosmic in nature but is the imposition of people like the good doctor himself.

Your comments on burglary or robbery are again total nonsense. The law is well established. You are allowed to arm yourself and to intervene and to use violence if under reasonable impression thast you are under threat.

However acts of robbery are not capital crimes and you are not allowed to simply gun people down because you catch them in your house or stealing your stuff. However you will find few cases where the law does not cut some slack to the homeowner or other who overeacts out of reasonable precaution.

I live in a liberal community and know that I would be supported if I met an invader with a 12 gauge. I know cops, lawyers and judges. They are on balance reasonable.

I know we don't have all the facts, but if the intruder did, without a reasonable doubt, break into Ben's house and, for whatever reason, empty a 9MM pistol at Ben, before being taken down by a superior marksman and an inferior weapon....

DB and Enscout: Note that Ben's case was a CIVIL case. He was not subject to crimminal prosecution by the state; he was sued by the crimminal he was defending himself, his home, and his pregnant wife against. By the way, the crimminal grabbed a .357 Magnum and was no doubt going to open up with that as well but Ben got him first.

If the jury is willing to award the plantiff such damages, what can be done? The judge apparently ensured that Ben "merely" lost his home and was not in hock for the rest of his life. The agreed to settlement "just happened" to exactly match Ben's bank account combined with the equity in his house.

But other people who have encountered burglers in the dead of night have not been so "lucky." A few years later in S.C. a man responded to TWO young men breaking into his house at 1AM by shooting and killing one of them. In return he was tried by the state and received a lengthy prison term. The family of the teenager who died during the act of burglery was OUTRAGED that the homeowner did not get AT LEAST life in prison without possibility of parole - and preferably the DEATH penalty - and tried to get the case retried!

"In most cases the best form of defence is always avoidance. If this isn’t possible, act passively, be careful what you say or do and give up valuables without a struggle. This allows the victim to take charge of the situation, without the intruder’s awareness, through subtle and non-confrontational means."